I came across this 9/11 video the other night: "How the Towers Fell".

http://blip.tv/file/306082/

It's a presentation done by an architect named Richard Gage. The beginning of the video focuses on the collapse of WTC building 7. I actually watched the whole thing (it's over an hour long) and thought it was pretty interesting. I'm curious what you guys think of it since this is a global community.

:bananadea

What's also interesting is WHY building 7 came down, In my opinion the whole thing was an inside job but I have no doubt many people will start screaming at that suggestion - lol.

The best conspiracy theory is the govt one, I always enjoy listening to people trying to support the official story which flies in the face of science and common sense.

However that never seems to stop people insisting that that 'orchestrated litany of lies' is true, shame that they are generally the ones who have done no research into what actually happened.

I'm sure that the truth will eventually come out, unfortunately however it will probably take many more years.

Till then I'm sure the sheeple will happily swallow the official pack of lies.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

What's also interesting is WHY building 7 came down.

Building 7 is what gets me... There was no reason for it to come down.. And the US govt. Has the power without a doubt to cover something this big up.. The US is going to destroy itself.

The other side are people who always insist on claiming the official story MUST be lies, and then jump on the easiest conspiracy bandwagon, claiming to have researched it themselves (despite never having been at 'Ground Nineteen' (or whatever silly name it was given)), probably by reading a magazine on it, or watching youtube videos.

There are no scientific journals on this collapse (in the public domain at least). Other than the official report, presumably made by engineers and other worthwhile people, there are no facts.

But, apparently, watching a Youtube video and seeing a puff of smoke must mean it was aliens. I mean, there is no way a building collapsing next to another building after being hit by a plane could ever release a puff of dust/smoke from being hit by debris...

I'm not saying the official reports states what happened, or even what they genuinely think happened. But I do get annoyed by the stupid conspiracy theories and the hangers-on they attract...

I think it must be the 'some humans have to believe in something' thing that lives so closely with the amusingly childish religious debates.

i heard that, if you put the name of the plane in word, and then webdings
u get like a plane, 2towers, a skull etc
but i tried and its a lie
with plane
N334AA
alltho

Quote from tristancliffe :

The other side are people who always insist on claiming the official story MUST be lies, and then jump on the easiest conspiracy bandwagon, claiming to have researched it themselves (despite never having been at 'Ground Nineteen' (or whatever silly name it was given)), probably by reading a magazine on it, or watching youtube videos.

There are no scientific journals on this collapse (in the public domain at least). Other than the official report, presumably made by engineers and other worthwhile people, there are no facts.

But, apparently, watching a Youtube video and seeing a puff of smoke must mean it was aliens. I mean, there is no way a building collapsing next to another building after being hit by a plane could ever release a puff of dust/smoke from being hit by debris...

I'm not saying the official reports states what happened, or even what they genuinely think happened. But I do get annoyed by the stupid conspiracy theories and the hangers-on they attract...

I think it must be the 'some humans have to believe in something' thing that lives so closely with the amusingly childish religious debates.

How about a paper written by a senior physics professor at Brigham Young.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

Whether you believe it or not it's at least well worth a read.

Here the opinion that no-one asked for:

The US new that the Towers were going to be attacked (not the first time that it's claimed they've known a bombing is going to happen but not told the public), and decided to make it an attack on American security (not just a symbol of capitalism like the World Trade Center (god what is the US's obsession with everything being a "world something"?) and staged on at the Pentagon, but botched it (ie no wreckage, no ground damage, far too small plane, key footage missing, eye-witness reports of too small planes etc), but the attack on the US excuse got Bush to war with Daddy's old Enemy (in the end) so all is well.

The real 9/11 Conspiracy is exactly who profited out of the Wars that followed.

As an inside job it was an epic fail. I mean, look what it brought them: only an invasion of Afghanistan, which is an utterly useless country, unless you dig heroin. To be able to invade Iraq, the Bush guys then had to invent WMD. Clumsy, very clumsy.

Quote from wsinda :

As an inside job it was an epic fail. I mean, look what it brought them: only an invasion of Afghanistan, which is an utterly useless country, unless you dig heroin.

Well there was the matter of that pipeline that Halliburton wanted to build from the Caspian sea to the gulf, but couldn't build because Afghanistan was in the way (it's not like they could've routed it through Iran). Not sure if that ever went ahead though.

Here's my theory:

A plane hit each of the towers. They burned as a result, eventually melted, and collapsed. The planes hit them because terrorists wanted them to. Building 7 collapsed because two 100+ story buildings collapsed right next to it.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well there was the matter of that pipeline that Halliburton wanted to build from the Caspian sea to the gulf

I heard they changed plans and are now routing it North, across the Pole into Canada. Phase 1 of construction is to quickly melt the ice caps, to facilitate laying the pipes. (If you thought Global Warming was a coincidence: you were wrong. :schwitz

Quote from TAYLOR-MANIA :

And that ^ is exactly the theory of someone who doesn't want to know the truth. Things go so much deeper than that though.

And that is a theory of someone desperate to want there to be more to it... There might be, but there equally well might not be.

I'll read that link RacerNXZ

Quote from TAYLOR-MANIA :

And that ^ is exactly the theory of someone who doesn't want to know the truth. Things go so much deeper than that though.

No, this that is the theory of someone who understands that when an airplane is hijacked, it can be flown anywhere. Someone who understands that when a 757 flies into a building, it can destroy 25% of the outer skeletal support structure and ignite a massively hot fire. Someone who understands that for cost-reasons, the steel was not correctly fireproofed and started to warp under the heat, and that the small bolts holding the trusses in place were not designed to withstand any significant amount of lateral sheer force. And that when subjected to these forces, the bolts failed and the trusses collapsed. And that when enough trusses collapsed, the outer skeleton folded much like a thin aluminum coke can does when you stand on it and tap the side lightly.

Someone who understands that some things in the world today can be explained by plain old physics, however boring that might be.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

How about a paper written by a senior physics professor at Brigham Young.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

Whether you believe it or not it's at least well worth a read.

Well yeah, but when a physics professor says something about a building collapse looks shifty then yeah that will attract credibility. When a few million mindless meme-humping net nerds do it, all it serves to do is undermine that one lonely physics professor.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

No, this that is the theory of someone who understands that when an airplane is hijacked, it can be flown anywhere. Someone who understands that when a 757 flies into a building, it can destroy 25% of the outer skeletal support structure and ignite a massively hot fire. Someone who understands that for cost-reasons, the steel was not fireproofed and started to warp under the heat, and that the small bolts holding the trusses in place were not designed to withstand any significant amount of lateral sheer force. And that when subjected to these forces, the bolts failed and the trusses collapsed. And that when enough trusses collapsed, the outer skeleton folded much like a thin aluminum coke can does when you stand on it and tap the side lightly.

Someone who understands that some things in the world today can be explained by plain old physics, however boring that might be.

Just so you know, we are talking about the building near the twin towers that WASN'T directly hit by a plane.

Leanardo devinchi sry bout my spelling. Apparently prophosised about the twin towers. If you are interested in conspiracy loose change is a good watch. It is 1 hour long and is quite worth viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE It was once featured in a national geographic programme and is interesting.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Well yeah, but when a physics professor says something about a building collapse looks shifty then yeah that will attract credibility. When a few million mindless meme-humping net nerds do it, all it serves to do is undermine that one lonely physics professor.

After all, why pay any attention to science when you have a good conspiracy theory.

And just 2 pieces of research for people who have a brain.

1 - What was Operation Northwood ?

2 - What temperature does Jet fuel burn at in optimum conditions and what is the melting temperature of steel ?

And a bonus question - What is a SADDAM ( see, Bush didn't completely lie ! ) and how might it have been used ?

A virtual chocolate fish for the first correct answer.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Just so you know, we are talking about the building near the twin towers that WASN'T directly hit by a plane.

Ahh - sorry. Got a little sidetracked. Well I don't know much about that...

...but what the hell, I'm sure there's a logical scientific explanation for that one too!

Quote from Racer X NZ :

2 - What temperature does Jet fuel burn at in optimum conditions and what is the melting temperature of steel ?

I don't know the figures, but the former is below the latter. How does that matter? Does steel need to be melted these days to lose structural integrity? Or are you actually rubbish at metallurgy and just making stuff up?

Here's a hint - the jet fuel did not need to melt the steel to cause it to lose the ability to hold a building up.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Building 7 collapsed because two 100+ story buildings collapsed right next to it.

That's your theory? Peer pressure?

Quote from Batterypark :

That's your theory? Peer pressure?

ROFL

Quote from tristancliffe :

I don't know the figures, but the former is below the latter. How does that matter? Does steel need to be melted these days to lose structural integrity? Or are you actually rubbish at metallurgy and just making stuff up?

Here's a hint - the jet fuel did not need to melt the steel to cause it to lose the ability to hold a building up.

There were large quantities of molten steel for over SIX WEEKS after the collapse of the buildings, what actually caused this if it wasn't the jet fuel ?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

This has NEVER happened in the case of a fire in a similar building anywhere in the world. ( Mind you, neither has their collapse, even in the case of the fire raging for several days )

What caused the seismic shocks just prior to each buildings collapse ?

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

It may just be an "internet video" but to be perfectly honest I trust this guy more than US media.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Here's a hint - the jet fuel did not need to melt the steel to cause it to lose the ability to hold a building up.

Exactly. Take two desks, put them almost three feet apart, and then lay a yard stick in between them. The force the yard stick exerts on the desks at each end is 100% directed straight down. Now, push down on the middle, so as to bend the yard stick a bit. The ends of the ruler will slide inward a bit. Steel, as with any metal, expands as it gets hot, and gets more pliable. The yard stick here represents the trusses holding the outer skeleton upright against the central core. As they got hot, they sagged. Now imagine if you nailed each end of the yard stick to the desk. When you're not pushing down on it, there is no real force exerted on that nail. However, as you push down, the yard stick wants to pull inward, and you can easily bend the nail if you push hard enough. That's what happened to the WTC.